OASIS Darwin Information Typing Architecture (DITA) TC

 View Only
  • 1.  FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-08-2009 21:43
    
    > 


  • 2.  RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-14-2009 16:53
    Thanks for forwarding this Jeff.
    
    So it seems we should call the kind of customization we're including in the specification "extension" or similar - not "customization."
    
    Then as Dick says, we should include a section on "Customization" per se at the end that recognizes that "there is no question that people need and want to customize" DITA in its proper sense, using generic XML or other techniques beyond those we specify, but "if you must, you're on your own and not conformant."
    
    --Dana
    
    


  • 3.  RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-14-2009 17:03

    As long as we have wording that makes it explicit that the customization - ie breaking the spec - should be something you try only where valid extension mechanisms aren't enough.

    This is particularly true now that we have the constraints mechanism in 1.2. There are a whole set of requirements that led people to customize with 1.1 or 1.2 where now there is a DITA-valid way to do so.

    Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    Lead IBM DITA Architect
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



    Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

    07/14/2009 12:54 PM

    To
    dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    cc
    Subject
    RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization





    Thanks for forwarding this Jeff.

    So it seems we should call the kind of customization we're including in the specification "extension" or similar - not "customization."

    Then as Dick says, we should include a section on "Customization" per se at the end that recognizes that "there is no question that people need and want to customize" DITA in its proper sense, using generic XML or other techniques beyond those we specify, but "if you must, you're on your own and not conformant."

    --Dana





  • 4.  Re: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-14-2009 17:18
    It's probably also useful, as the 1.1 language did, to make a clear
    distinction between non-conforming things done purely to support authoring,
    and non-conforming things done that persist in data.
    
    That is, modifying a schema in a way that the *schema* doesn't conform to
    the rules for vocabulary modules but the documents that conform to it *do*
    conform to the DITA spec is materially different from modifying a schema
    such that the documents themselves do not conform.
    
    For example, hacking a schema to enable dynamic generation of enumerated
    attribute declarations, as described on today's call, doesn't affect the
    conformance of the documents, even though the schema itself can't conform as
    implemented (because it's doing something not allowed for in the
    implementation rules).
    
    But adding arbitrary attributes to individual element types results in
    *documents* that cannot conform to the DITA spec. This is sometimes
    required, for example to support CMS systems that impose their own
    attributes, but both the systems that do that and the users of those systems
    need to clearly understand that the resulting documents do not, in that
    form, conform to DITA, and must therefore be modified before being
    interchanged. Note that in this case you can use a conforming constraint
    module to add the attributes to an otherwise-conforming vocabulary module,
    so the vocabulary modules themselves in this case conform to the rules for
    modules (other than adding arbitrary attributes).
    
    In general, I think we are or should be more concerned about changes that
    make documents non-conforming and that bias should probably be reflected in
    the spec if it isn't already.
    
    Cheers,
    
    E.
    
    On 7/14/09 12:02 PM, "Michael Priestley" 


  • 5.  RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-15-2009 18:56
    Agreed - so long as when Michael says "should be something you try only where valid extension mechanisms aren't enough", he doesn't mean "SHOULD be something you only try..."
    
    That is - we're giving advice here, or encouraging people to use the valid mechanisms - but not mandating it.
    
    Since we can hardly mandate anything to someone determined to break the spec.
    
    --Dana
    
    


  • 6.  RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization

    Posted 07-16-2009 16:10

    I think that's SHOULD versus MUST.

    Michael Priestley, Senior Technical Staff Member (STSM)
    Lead IBM DITA Architect
    mpriestl@ca.ibm.com
    http://dita.xml.org/blog/25



    Dana Spradley <dana.spradley@oracle.com>

    07/15/2009 02:57 PM

    To
    Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>, Michael Priestley/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
    cc
    dita@lists.oasis-open.org
    Subject
    RE: [dita] FW: DocBook Customization





    Agreed - so long as when Michael says "should be something you try only where valid extension mechanisms aren't enough", he doesn't mean "SHOULD be something you only try..."

    That is - we're giving advice here, or encouraging people to use the valid mechanisms - but not mandating it.

    Since we can hardly mandate anything to someone determined to break the spec.

    --Dana